wow
 

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

7-0.

wow
 

I said they haven't had 3.

87-7-10.

wow
 

Maybe so, but before that, you said: "The fillibuster appears to be the only new idea coming out of the 'party of change' these days."

Better change that to 86-8-10.

wow
 

3 is the operative number for the disagreement. The above is rhetoric.

88-7-10

wow
 

with so many of you out of office, I guess you've the time.....

wow
 

Sometimes I'm out of the office for a deposition, IYKWIM.

wow
 

Do you mean "deposition" in the FB sense like when President Clinton soiled a young women's dress, or in the FRCP sense like where he lied about it?

This kind of mistruth is what club calls "rhetoric."
 

"Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
February 2nd, 2005


"In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt formed the Committee on Economic Security to design what was in effect the first federal safety net, the committee hired three actuaries to stargaze into the future. The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

Roger Lowenstein
New York Times Magazine
January 16th, 2005

[courtesy of TPM]

This kind of mistruth is what club calls "rhetoric."
 

You're bothered by "Could not have forseen"?

In 1934 did they predict, accurately, HOW LONG they'd live?

I know it was late and it was really important for you to find another lie, but that's sort of stretching, isn't it?

This kind of mistruth is what club calls "rhetoric."
 

Since when was SS founded by actuaries?

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the speech. The agenda for the next 4 years is very bold and I think he at least communicated that he is willing to consider ideas from all sources in order to attempt to deal with some difficult issues.

I will say though that he, like nearly every other President, really pisses me off by saying early in the speech "We are going to hold increases in non-discretionary spending to below inflation" and then proceeding to speak for the next hour on all the new spending initiatives.

McClellan's new Main Man
 

No doubt, it's tough being a WH press secretary. Begin forced to spin your Administration's policies in the face of unpleasant facts is difficult for anyone, and only the truly gifted aliens -- the Ari's of the world -- can do it consistently.

Poor mortals like Scott McClellan have almost no hope at all. His answers often stumble, drift, wander, perambulate, pause to relieve themselves, and trip over their own inconsistencies.

Fortunately, McClellan has new allies in the Briefing Room. The surprise is that the ally is a credentialed member of the press corps. Move over, FNC, there's a new sycophant in town!

• The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.
  
  Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."
  
  Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality." During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.

McClellan's new Main Man
 

I'm trying to decide if this is better or worse than the propaganda via pundit method.

McClellan's new Main Man
 

Certainly McClellan appreciates it more. In between fastballs, he can arrange for this guy to come set up a tee in front of the plate.

This kind of mistruth is what club calls "rhetoric."
 

If a NYT reporter can figure out that they actually did foresee this, and made accurate predictions, I would hope that the President would have someone working for him who would get this right. But I'm not particularly bothered by it. It's par for the course at this point.

I'm sure the President was thinking hard about the distinction between those who founded Social Security and the actuaries they hired.

This kind of mistruth is what club calls "rhetoric."
 

Do you not understand that w/o the slope being predicted they didn't forsee it? Let me help, I'm a scientist and I say it's so.

FarenHYPE 911
 

I am in the middle of this- My god is all I can say. I'm it is a slapdown that is probably as unfair as Mike at times, but that boy took some liberties. they interview the teacher at the school and the Oregon State Trooper, and they both sort of disagree with the Mike. Not to mention showing all the numbers and parnoia were horseshit.

FarenHYPE 911
 

I've seen neither Moore's movie, nor this thing you're referring to. so I really have no idea about it. Quick question -- since you're reading this refutation, did you happen to have seen the movie to which it refers?

FarenHYPE 911
 

Watching, not reading- and I've seen Mike's little movie.
That is how come i keep posting these cryptic "pipeline" comments.

FarenHYPE 911
 

Ah, OK. Carry on.

MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 1998:

• An effort "to craft a bipartisan bill to assure Social Security's solvency," says the Los Angeles Times.'
  
  "A bold move to put the future of the massive retirement program at the top of his agenda," says The Washington Post.
  
  "They still must resolve an emotional ideological debate over whether the government should continue to take money from the working-age generation and transfer it to retirees . . . or whether Social Security should be transformed so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements," says the New York Times.

MSM Coverage of Social Security Debate circa 2005:

• "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board." Says the L.A. Times.
  
  But the president declined to take ownership of any of these politically risky changes, offering them instead as the ideas offered in the past by other politicians, all Democrats as it turned out, says The Washinton Post.
  
  His avoidance of specifics appeared deliberate. The Bush team well knows how critics of the Clinton administration's heavily detailed health care proposal - submitted to Congress as a pre-baked package - picked it apart and defeated it a decade ago, says The New York Times.

What's your problem with any of this?

Damn liberal media.

Club is just slightly ahead of the curve on the Administration's new media-bashing strategy.

Why does SS reform get equated with private accounts?

So this means you admit your "forseen" argument lost, right? Can I count it or are you going to try and support that shit?

Paging Ty!
 

did you read the oil for food report? sounds like Chalabi has been fooling a whole nother group of people that something bad happened.

On the forseen thing, I stopped arguing with you because I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about, and because I thought the inconsistency between what the President said and what the NYT article related was pretty clear.

I haven't read the oil-for-food report, but I have read (and was about to post here a link to when someone interrupted me earlier) an article relating its contents. It sounds like a lot of people, including us, knew that people were making money off the sanctions, and decided for various reasons to look the other way. In our case, it was a desire not to come down on Jordan and Turkey, allies which were violating the sanctions.

why Duran said "no mas" doesn't matter as to Leonard's record.

You quoted Bush saying: "Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer - and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades"

and then quoted a study that had about the same % of people over 65 FORSEEN when ss started.

That number is meaningless unless the slope (the amount of change per year) in the number was also predicted. If 10 years ago the % predicted was higher than actual and now its equal we have a problem (the amount is increasing too fast- several reasons why this is true), and Bush's statement is fine.

If the prediction was accurate as to the change, the people who made the prediction were some amazing people.

Either way, in the end it is pathetic you are reduced to this as your "lie" du jour- given that a year ago you were trying to say Bush lied us into war.

Ever hear the story of the little boy who cried wolf?

First, I didn't say he lied. You did. I think he doesn't care, but that's different, I suppose.

Second, what the fuck difference does the "slope" make? Bush suggested that they could not have predicted that people would be living longer. In fact, they did predict this, and very accurately so.

Third, when you get all Delphic and shit, you can't fault anyone for failing to stay with you. I do appreciate your efforts to explain yourself above, though I still can't figure out why the rate of change matters if they pegged the percentage so dead on.

You cite some prediction from 1935 that says in 2000 14% (whatever it was) of the population will be over 65. In fact in 2000 13.8% was over 65. To you that predicting the burden accurately.

I have no dog in this fight and actually don't want SS to be radically changed- I fear we will be walking over elderly street people soon if we do. But the fact that in 1 year the numbers were the same is meaningless. Bush didn't say he wasn't sure SS could make next month's nut.

Let's take 2 uncontroversial points- Baby Boom and medical science advances lifespan.

In 1935 did they predict a Baby Boom? If so, they were smart MFs. If they didn't, then in 1970 the predicted % over 65 was probably way higher than actual (there were millions more people in their 20s). Medical Science (MS) will cause the % to be generally increasing absent other the factors- so there is some slope or increase in the % that would be expected w/o other disturbance. The Baby Boom would be a disturbance that would cause the percentage to go down for awhile- that is, it would counter the effect of MS.

However, the Baby Boom will eventually get to 65. At that point there will be one severe upturn (slope)* in the percentage. And the slope would be much steeper than it would be if based only on MS. And the fact that the predicted % and the actual % crossed sometime in 2000 doesn't mean shit.

And I doubt very much they predicted how much MS has advanced lifespan- and I think the welfare state could have had an effect on the % similar to Baby Boom, but as my K professor used to say "I don't need to go so far afield."**

*actually this is mainly an excuse to show math skillz- some of the FB girlies were talking yesterday about how much they like that shit.

**Gatti. Can I count this one now? I have to get a report to my boss by 5 EST of what I did this week.

Tomorrow's Problem Today
 

Ok, the counting is not done but the Islamic al-Sistani party appears heading for an absolute majority in Iraq. There is some chance that the first Democratically elected Islamic state in the Middle East is about to emerge in Iraq.

Assuming al-Sistani's folks end up with control of a majority in Parliament, and the ability to get to 2/3 without allying with Allawi (which also looks possible), so they can cut a deal where the Kurds get autonomy and they get an Islamic state, what should we do?

My thoughts about possible options (pick several):

(1) assume it will all work out and continue as we are (assumed temporary military presence, turn over full control of domestic affairs to the new government, keep training the Iraqi police and armed forces);
(2) assume we have to work hard and negotiate to build an alliance with al-Sistani, knowing that his people think of us as utterly untrustworthy (remember, we encouraged them to revolt and then let them get slaughtered in the first war) and this will be a long hard road; put everything about our continued role in Iraqi on the table for negotiation in a proceeding that is assumed to be adversarial;
(3) ensure continued military presence for a long time, perhaps even forcing a permanent military facility (or multiple facilities) on Iraqi soil;
(4) make sure there is adequate leadership for each faction to facilitate a future 3-way split of the country, knowing we can get one good ally (Kurdistan) and hoping for at least two;
(5) play ball with more old Baathists to strengthen the Sunni hand, but not go so far as to actively pull in the current insurgents;
(6) assume the political game is now an all-Iraqi game and do our best to make sure American businesses have significant freedom to operate in Iraq, counting on capitalism to slowly change the underlying dynamics;
(7) undermine al-Sistani in every possible way, maximizing the use of every "stick" we have to make it clear that he can manage the roads and hospitals but is not in a position to turn Iraq into an Islamic state or dictate its foreign policy; this option could include starting to actively work with and support some of the insurgents.

Any other choices? So which of these policies should Bush follow if Sistani gains a majority?

(note: I'm trying to be purely analytical, not partisan - it's just a position we may find ourselves in a couple weeks from now and I'm curious how others would handle it).

Yes, but the question in my mind is why you bothered to post it or thought it mattered. it struck me as kind of similar in that way to Club's MSM post with the various out-of context snippets on the President's SS reform "plan."

That statement by Bush seemed to me to be a non-substantive rhetorical flourish, and it doesn't really matter if the U.S. government foresaw or predicted these issues in 1936. So, I think this is not an issue that you should have been drawn in to argue about. [Bad for the team, IYKWIM.]

S_A_M

This is one of the rare occassions that Hank engages in substantive debate; you should not let it drop.

I think what Hank is saying is that the burden on social security is not dependent solely on the percentage of the population over 65. It is a burden that also depends on the anticipated lifespan of each individual. He is right; the anticipated lifespan will determine whether the trend and curve of that percentage going forward, and whether you're talking about a stable roughly 14% or an increasing roughly 14%.

There is also a variable in terms of how much benefits people receive - not all recipients get the same benefits - and how much is coming into the system (e.g., how much the remaining 86% make, up to the cap).

At the same time, certainly there was an expectation in the 30s that lifespans would increase. Lifespans had been increasing up until then, and medicine had seen a very radical transformation over the prior generation. The existence of a baby boom probably wouldn't have been seen (as well as the preceding baby drought from all the men hanging out in Europe during the war). The overall drop in family size and birthrates may have been anticipated, too - I don't know if they got it right.

Bush quoted it as part of building the case for throwing out the fundamental deal that social security represents and replacing it with a very different one (we'll provide a vehicle for you to save for retirement and mandate some level of participation, rather than a we will provide a safety net for the aged population and share the costs among all).

Remember, Bush is not trying to fix the system we have but trying to replace it with a new and different system.

That having been said, it's not a particularly strong argument for Bush; it's kind of like when he said things about Democracy in Iraq before the invasions -- those were throw-away lines, and we all knew it was all about WMD.

Because that's exactly what Bush wants. His Administration has been conflating the two issues from the beginning.

There are two legitimate issues out there: the eventual insolvency (decades out) of a guaranteed entitlement, and the country's low retirement savings rate. Bush wants to "solve" the second problem by drawing funds from and eliminating the entitlement, at least in part, and perhaps altogether. His proclimations about "saving" SocSec are, as far as I can tell, nonsense.

You may recall that private accounts were originally touted as THE WAY to solve the SS problem. Only recently has the Administration dropped that argument, in the face of unpleasant facts. Apparently, before the SOTU an administration official briefing conceded that private accounts are at best net neutral effect on SocSec finances.

Bush has said that raising payroll taxes are not an option, which means that benefits will have to be cut, perhaps significantly. Further, according to the Krugman article I linked to above, the logic of Bush-style Social Security privatization "is, in effect, as if your financial adviser told you that you wouldn't have enough money when you retire - but you shouldn't save more. Instead, you should borrow a lot of money, buy stocks and hope for capital gains."

I know that there are many Krugman detractors out there, so I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. If someone can show me counters to Krugman's argument that doesn't use Bush Administration talking points that have been later discarded, I'd appreciate it.

They're not nonsense, because he also has reforms that would help solvency, independent of privatization, no? E.g., reducing the growth rate of benefits. The problem is that as a political matter, one has to buy off the people who get screwed by reductions in out-year benefits with a different approach that allows them to keep those benefit levels, but only by taking a gamble on the markets.

That said, my biggest problem is this: I don't want to pay twice. Once to give people money to invest for their retirement. A second time when they fuck it up and we still have to give them something in retirement.

I think we can all agree that something has to be done to reform SS at some point in time. The basis of the debate is the when and the what.

As to the when, I find it refreshing that we have a pol that is willing to try to do something before it reaches a crisis point.

As to the what, I would like to see personal retirement accounts for a host of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with saving SS. But I'm not sure why a plan can't be crafted involving PRAs. If X% of your SS taxes was placed in a PRA, but your non PRA benefits were reduced by an amount equal to the amount placed in plus the amount of interest it would have gained under the old system, then assuming that the PRA appreciated at a greater rate than under the old system, there would be a net benefit to the system as a whole.

As for Krugman, many, such as Tom Maguire and the Truth Squad, have debunked his SS position and, IMHO, he has been outed as a dishonest partisan. This is not to say that there are not good legitimate arguments against private accounts.

If you care about the numbers, just go back to my original post to get them right:

"The actuaries predicted that the proportion of Americans over 65 -- then only 5.4 percent -- would rise to 12.65 percent in 1990, meaning that retiree costs would soar. They were just a tad high; the actual figure would be 12.49 percent."

For a fifty-year projection, that's not bad. But the bigger point is that Bush was telling people that Social Security has problems no one could have anticipated in the 1930s -- in fact, they did anticipate that people would live longer, and slightly overestimated the effect.

Then you list a bunch of other things they might not have predicted. Whatever. I think we all agree that Social Security needs to be tweaked to accommodate changed circumstances. I have no problem with telling people to work a little longer before they get benefits. But the fact remains that Bush has an ideological goal of ending Social Security, and to that end said something that wasn't true.

Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.

It would be more refreshing if Bush were aiming to do something to address the crisis, instead of making it worse. He wants to solve the problem of the projected insolvency in 2052 by borrowing trillions now. That cure is worse than the disease -- unless you think the problem is that we have Social Security at all. Since most Americans disagree, the Republicans who feel this way have had to resort to a flim-flam case for change.